1990 (8) TMI 137 - SC - Income Tax

Whether the business assets of the Fancy Kirana Stores could not be regarded as illegally acquired property within the meaning of section 3(1)(c)? Held that - Whenever an appellant puts forth the finding of an Income-tax Officer as evidence in support of his contentions, the Competent Authority may not be justified in brushing it aside particularly in the absence of any positive evidence to the contrary. The Competent Authority cannot invoke section 21 only to negative a plea of the appellant which otherwise is supported by an order of the Income-tax Officer. It is, however, open to the Competent Authority to brush aside such plea of the appellant on the basis of some other reliable evidence and, in the instant case, the Competent Authority has not come across some other reliable evidence contrary to the one produced by the appellant. In the absence of any such reliable evidence to the contrary, we, therefore, hold that the Competent Authority was not justified in concluding that the assets in question were illegally acquired property of the appellant. In favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against order under SAFEMA
- Compliance with Tribunal directions
- Legality of property forfeiture under SAFEMA
- Evidence from income-tax records
- Competent Authority's decision under SAFEMA

Analysis:

The appellant, being the nephew of a detainee under the COFEPOSA Act, was subjected to proceedings under SAFEMA in 1977. An order under section 7(1) was issued in 1977, which was later set aside by the Tribunal due to lack of opportunity for evidence submission. The Competent Authority issued a fresh order in 1989, leading to the current appeal challenging the forfeiture of properties. The appellant was served notice specifying properties like investments, stock, and cash. However, due to the appellant's insanity and disappearance, his father requested proceedings to be put on hold until his son's recovery or to accept pre-1978 explanations. The Competent Authority proceeded with the order despite non-compliance with Tribunal directions, prompting the current appeal.

The Competent Authority based its decision on income-tax records showing the appellant's business activities and initial capital investment. Although the source of the initial investment was questioned, the income-tax authorities did not tax it as unexplained income, implying acceptance of its genuineness. The Competent Authority argued that such inference is not binding under section 21 of SAFEMA. However, the absence of contrary evidence led the Court to uphold the appellant's plea. The Competent Authority's reliance on section 21 to dismiss the appellant's contentions without reliable evidence was deemed unjustified. The Court concluded that the assets were not illegally acquired, setting aside the Competent Authority's order under section 7(1) in favor of the appellant.

In summary, the judgment revolves around the legality of property forfeiture under SAFEMA, the Competent Authority's decision-making process, and the weightage given to evidence from income-tax records. The Court emphasized the importance of considering all available evidence and not dismissing contentions solely based on statutory provisions. Ultimately, the appeal succeeded, and the Competent Authority's order was overturned based on the lack of concrete evidence supporting the forfeiture of the appellant's assets.